He traded shares on borrowed money, so he bore the losses

Ms Heng and Mr Xiang lived together from 1998 until July 2019 and raised two children, now adults. She worked in customer service and earned about $69,000 a year. He was a salesperson on about $112,000. Over the years they built up a portfolio of residential units in and around Darwin, but by the trial the debts were almost equal to the value of the properties. He said they had been caught by a downturn in the Darwin market.

A $400,000 line of credit had been taken out to buy real estate. Mr Xiang used it to buy shares, many of them speculative, without consulting Ms Heng. When he lost his job around the time of the separation, he could not pay the interest. The shares were sold during the 2020 market slump, and his losses came to $364,071. About $83,000 was still owing on the line of credit at trial.

The agreed balance sheet showed assets of $1,906,643 and debts of $1,726,506, leaving about $180,000. Each also had superannuation of a little over $60,000. Ms Heng asked for all of the net property. Mr Xiang asked for an equal split.

Judge Young found their contributions were about equal, apart from the share losses. Applying the principle that a party who acts recklessly with the couple's assets may have to carry the loss alone, the judge found Mr Xiang's share trading speculative, imprudent and reckless. Ms Heng was not blameless, because she did not ask how the line of credit was being used, but the overwhelming responsibility was his. Without the losses, the net assets would have been about $580,000, and an equal share would have been about $290,000 each. Because the remaining $180,000 was less than the losses, the judge treated Ms Heng as having made 100% of the contribution to it.

The remaining units were to be sold and the net proceeds paid to Ms Heng. She took over the line of credit debt of about $83,000. Each kept their own superannuation, car and personal effects, and Mr Xiang kept his tools.